🇺🇸United States @bsnodgrass

This should work for me... In my calendar

mandclu → credited bsnodgrass → .

teknorah → credited bsnodgrass → .

seantwalsh → credited bsnodgrass → .

bsnodgrass → created an issue.

I decided to hold off on our upgrade to see if this gets fixed.

I have confirmed the same problem... will try the workaround (NOT on a Friday) next week per #2 🐛 Update version 6.0.0-beta2 => 6.0.0-rc1 Needs work

teknorah → credited bsnodgrass → .

Queue and Dequeue, while short don't describe the action. "Add to queue" or "Remove from queue" would be preferable and easier to understand. (or maybe "+ Queue" and "- Queue")

I changed the second paragraph from "the core Tour Module" to "the Tour Module". the preceding "Drupal 8" appropriate?

It currently reads "To manually create step by step tours in Drupal 8 using the Tour module → , you will follow roughly these steps:"

In the second paragraph removed core from the text

seantwalsh → credited bsnodgrass → .

@liam-morland Thanks for the tip! I did not see that!

I did get the patch to install properly and corrected my problem.

I had the same issue... It showed for me when viewing the status report. I added the patch to my composer.json and updated the patch on #9 failed to install.

I'm not sure what I might be doing wrong.
Attaching log file $ ddev composer update --lock -v

Confirmed, this is working. Marking RTBC

hestenet → credited bsnodgrass → .

hestenet → credited bsnodgrass → .

hestenet → credited bsnodgrass → .

hestenet → credited bsnodgrass → .

hestenet → credited bsnodgrass → .

hestenet → credited bsnodgrass → .

hestenet → credited bsnodgrass → .

hestenet → credited bsnodgrass → .

hestenet → credited bsnodgrass → .

fixed typo

chrisfromredfin → credited bsnodgrass → .

froboy → credited bsnodgrass → .

Point taken @lostcarpark

Removing developer tools category and marking RTBC.

Maintainers make final call on categories, moving this along to RTBC

Maintainers should also note another possible category suggestion in https://www.drupal.org/project/project_browser/issues/3298488#comment-15... 📌 EU Cookie Compliance Project - Update Categories Needs review

Moving this to RTBC

I also agree, moving this to RTBC

Per the suggestion from @bhogue, adding Administrator Tools, the maintainers make the final call. Moving this along with RTBC

I agree, updating summary, moving to RTBC

@dflitner I can't disagree with that. The maintainers have the final say on their categories. Moving this forward, marking it RTBC

We can only have up to Three Categories for a module.

Updating summary, media is the current selected category and I am putting that in the top position. Marking this one RTBC based on the consensus I am reading in comments. The maintainers will make the final decision.

Marking this as RTBC, noting Media is the current category for the project, I added it to the list with a Question mark. The maintainers can make the call on that one.

I think @lostcarpark and I are close enough to being on the same page on this one. We will let the project maintainers make their decisions.
Updating the summary and marking RTBC

The project doesn't identify any categories https://www.drupal.org/project/better_exposed_filters →

Adding recommendations from @bhogue in the summary an order that makes more sense to me. I still think this needs review, but we could let the maintainers make those decisions.

Project Included Site Structure as a current category, but I would suggest the module maintainers make that call.

Updated summary, marking RTBC

adjusting summary, marking RTBC

adjusting summary, marking RTBC

updating summary, Marking RTBC

Adding link to Project, I agree, marking RTBC.

removing third category, not needed.

Added project link to summary, Reviewed, I agree, and am marking this RTBC

Added project link to Summary, adjusted the order of categories to be more consistent with the current categorization.

Marking RTBC

Adjusting the order of the items since the current project page https://www.drupal.org/project/entity_browser → identifies as Media category.

I agree with these categories, marking RTBC

Adding Project in the summary https://www.drupal.org/project/entity_reference_revisions →

I agree, marking RTBC

Adding Project page to Summary, I agree with this, marking it RTBC

Adding project page to the summary: https://www.drupal.org/project/simple_sitemap →

@leslieg can you review?

@leslieg Can you review?

@philalonso: I can't disagree with that logic... We will let the maintainers take it from here. Making RTBC and fixing the summary

I agree as well... it's now the common name

I am not familiar with this module: https://www.drupal.org/project/panelbutton →
Adding to the Issue Summary

Having the project page might be helpful on these child issues.
If anyone is interested in the old list with the project URLS:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uZULaKLt5nwzYfzsrIUYLPEEO1dZFl5c...

After reviewing the module's README.md, and seeing all the included API methods, we might want to consider adding Developer Tools as a category.

Modifying the Issue Summary.

I agree, marking RTBC

I also agree, marking RTBC

Access Control and Security look good to me.

Updating Summary, calling RTBC

I fully agree with User Engagement and Integrations (in that order).

I am not certain about the Content Display category, @philalonso ?

I agree with these categories. Marking RTBC

I agree with Administrator Tools and Content Editing Experience.

Given that tools such API modules like Ctools, devel, twig tweak, and drush would all be considered Developer Tools, including Field Group in this list could be confusing for a basic site-building audience.

Adding Administrator Tools to the Issue Summary, Still needs review.

This is indeed a difficult one. The old category of Path Management is a better description of what redirect does.

However, our description for the Administration Tools category fits the Redirect module well: Empower site builders and administrators with no-code tools to set up, enhance, configure, or maintain the site.

I do think Search Engine Optimization (SEO) could also be valid.

FYI these are the same categories I have suggested for Pathauto #3277518

I don't think site search works for this one as redirect simply works with URL Alias redirects when the pattern changes, I don't think that is typically considering in Site search.

Editing the Issue Summary, status remains as Needs Review.

We have a maximum of 3 categories to be assigned to a module with the new module category list.

I agree with Search Engine Optimization (SEO) in clearly defining a human-readable URL alias that can be given a logical hierarchy for the path to match site structure and/or navigation. This I think is the number one choice.

I think administration tools are appropriate as they give site administrators no-code tools to configure URL alias patterns, which is a big plus for maintaining site structure.

I would propose these two over automation tools (it is automatic once patterns are setup, you can also bulk update URL alias if patterns change, but the process is manually initiated.

AFAIK there is nothing in accessibility guidelines for URL Alias patterns.

Editing Issue Summary, keeping the status at Needs Review.

Unfortunately, I am not able to see what categories Admin Toolbar is currently assigned.

@kbeck303 What do you think?

I don't think adding Content Editing Experience provides any benefit.

The goal here is to identify the fewest appropriate categories.

Content Editing Experieince is defined as, "Enhance the editorial interface and improve the processes and workflows around creating, editing or removing content."

While such tools are included in the Admin toolbar, there are many more unrelated items.

I would proceed with RTBC, @leslieg ?

I agree with these categories, confirming Issue summary and marking RTBC

seantwalsh → credited bsnodgrass → .

per @danreb on https://www.drupal.org/project/search_api_pantheon/issues/3449701#commen... 💬 Support for Configuring Synonyms Active

He confirmed "The default Solr schema in Pantheon platform was set to 4.2.10, currently reposting of Solr Schema on Pantheon was broken (Sticky Solr Schema bug)"

and recommended. "If you want your custom config to take affect, what you need to do right now is to open a ticket and let the CSE or the platform engineers reposted the config for you in the affected environments."

adjusted order of categories.

I agree with @bhogue on this. Modifying the Issue Summary to add
Site Structure - "Extend the structure of the site by way of content models, data storage, field types, and navigation, so it is more understandable to users" and mark RTBC

Is this issue intended to also provide the resolution to this issue? https://www.drupal.org/project/remote_image/issues/3289311 →

If so should the other issue be marked as duplicate?

And can we get a 2.0.1 version released?

@danreb I've created a support ticket assistance with making this happen or instructions as to how we can post the config.zip ourselves?

Initially we would like to post the schema changes on transmfg.build multidev to confirm our issue is fixed.

Following we will be making a number of changes on transmfg.build and have them applied to all our environments.

Reading the history, I had forgotten about it. ECA does sound like a great fit for it.

cosmicdreams → credited bsnodgrass → .

bsnodgrass → created an issue.

I updated the Summary to include a definition of IXP = Inexperienced.

I am creating a new child issue to survey and gather information from our target "Inexperienced Developer" audience, I think we should gather information from these folks about their initial career experience, what worked for them, what didn't work or frustrated them, and what ideas we should consider for our best practices.

bsnodgrass → created an issue.

Should this be marked as Fixed?

We can confirm the Solr Schema on Pantheon (all environments) is 4.2.10 with search_api_pantheon 8.1.8, search_api 8.x-1.34, and search_api_solr 4.3.3

/admin/config/search/search-api/server/pantheon_solr8 reports the following:
Schema Version 4.2.10
Schema drupal-4.2.10-solr-8.x-1
Minimal required schema version 4.3.0
Preferred schema version 4.3.3
Configured Solr Version 8.0.0
Detected Solr Version 8.11.2

Per #5 our Solr Schema did not revert from 4.3.1 AFAIK it has been 4.2.10 since we configured our search. Our new content is being indexed on creation. We do have synonyms defined however and those are not working as expected.

tekNorah → credited bsnodgrass → .

Updated Title to be more consistant with the original issue title and link from Module Categories →

Second paragraph in Process / Step 1: includes text for "Maintainership | Drupal Wiki guide on Drupal.org" this should be linked to an appropriate URL.

Something is off with the menu structure on this node.
All items on the same level show an incorrect title for the top level link.

Future edits should happen on https://www.drupal.org/drupalorg/docs/maintenance/module-categories-updates →

Updated the Stub documentation page - The google doc is basically deprecated at this point.

This is the first post from the google doc where the Guidelines were drafted at 📌 Create guidelines for adding new categories Needs review There needs to be review of this node for documentation standards and formatting.

At DrupalCon Portland 2024, a number of us involved in the Project Browser and Recipes initiative discussed "ecosystem" (or "use case") and how this might be used with search moving forward. I think now is an appropriate time to pick this task up again. I agree with @drumm our first step is to define what this is and how we intend to use it. I modified the Issue Summary.

Also, if I recall, we discussed some research started on the currently defined "ecosystems" displayed as "Project that extend this" in the sidebar on project pages. This research was not noted on this issue.

Suggested changes from Review added to the Google Doc.

I will add initial content to the stub documentation page.

I would say this should be kept and rewritten to reflect the current state of the initiative. I would be willing to write some of the content.

I will ask the current guide maintainers if they would like to participate. Who else should I assign as a guide maintainer?